I also came to the conclusion that Black has problems after 10. ... Nd7.

What about 10. ... Ng8 11.e6 Be6: 12.Re6: fe6: 13.Qb3 Ra7 14.Nc3 g6 15.Na4 ?White will bring the knight to c5 and perhaps also to d3 where it can go to e5 or support Bf4 (against Qd6). White keeps g3 in hand, which could be more effective once Black has developed his knight to f6.I am not so sure that this is so easy for Black.

But can't White simply play 3.g3 Nc6 4.Bg2 Nf6 5.d3 if you don't want to be committed to Qe2?

I think you can. The other reason for playing 3. d3 was to avoid the lines where they play .. d5 almost immediately and you play d4. Whilst that's fine when played by Adams and others, I didn't like the resulting positions very much, or didn't play them very well.

I've rather gone off playing 3. g3 and returned to the old 3. d3. Despite the loss of tempo and being one move behind, I feel the Queen is misplaced on e2 once the position becomes a genuine reversed Kings Indian.

The game between Short and Movsesian from the 2014 Olympiad is a particular example.[...]

Thanks for the game. It's similar to the main line in Delchev/Semkov.

But can't White simply play 3.g3 Nc6 4.Bg2 Nf6 5.d3 if you don't want to be committed to Qe2? Then it looks like the 3.g3 move order has served to cut down Black's options (and maybe trick some players out of their repertoire): All lines with ...Nge7 are off the table, including the setups with ...d5/...Bd6/...Nge7, ...d5/...Nge7/...g6/...Bg7 and ...Nge7/...e6-e5/...g6/...Bg7 (the Botvinnik system).

D & S try to show that 3.g3 Nc6 4.Bg2 Nf6 5.d3 d6 6.0-0 Be7 is OK for Black, but this is not what they wanted to play against 3.d3 - there they have Black attempting to set up the Botvinnik system.

I've rather gone off playing 3. g3 and returned to the old 3. d3. Despite the loss of tempo and being one move behind, I feel the Queen is misplaced on e2 once the position becomes a genuine reversed Kings Indian.

The game between Short and Movsesian from the 2014 Olympiad is a particular example.

1 e4 c5 2 Nf3 e6 3 g3 Nc6 4 Bg2 Nge7 5 0-0 looks good for White after either 5...g6 6 d4 or 5...d5 6 exd5 Nxd5 7 d4 (which is similar to another line, where White even has to make a couple preparatory moves before getting d2-d4 in)

Hmm, yes, 4...Nge7 doesn't look that good. Strange that a number of strong players have tried it. Maybe 7...Be7 8.dxc5 0-0 at the end of your line is worth a shot.

4...Nf6 is more common, and after 5 Qe2 d5, I think White has two good choices:

6 d3!? is a KIA proper, yes, but it's normally the position White wants to get on the board when he goes 3 d3, for instance; e.g. 6...Be7 7 0-0 0-0 8 e5 Nd7 9 c4!, when White probably isn't better, but this feels a bit like playing into Black's hands.

There's also 6 exd5 Nxd5 7 0-0 Be7 8 Rd1 followed by d2-d4 (4...Nge7 5 0-0 d5 6 exd5 above is an improved version of this line), when I think White's a bit better, or at least more comfortable.

In your last line, isn't Black fine after 8...Qb6 9.c3 0-0? Other than that, it seems a bit hard to get to the KIA lines I intended, though maybe this main line is still playable for both sides.

Though I'm starting to realize the Delchev/Semkov recommendation of 3.g3 Nc6 4.Bg2 Nf6 5.Qe2 e5 followed by ...Be7 and ...0-0 was well thought through.

1 e4 c5 2 Nf3 e6 3 g3 Nc6 4 Bg2 Nge7 5 0-0 looks good for White after either 5...g6 6 d4 or 5...d5 6 exd5 Nxd5 7 d4 (which is similar to another line, where White even has to make a couple preparatory moves before getting d2-d4 in)

4...Nf6 is more common, and after 5 Qe2 d5, I think White has two good choices:

6 d3!? is a KIA proper, yes, but it's normally the position White wants to get on the board when he goes 3 d3, for instance; e.g. 6...Be7 7 0-0 0-0 8 e5 Nd7 9 c4!, when White probably isn't better, but this feels a bit like playing into Black's hands.

There's also 6 exd5 Nxd5 7 0-0 Be7 8 Rd1 followed by d2-d4 (4...Nge7 5 0-0 d5 6 exd5 above is an improved version of this line), when I think White's a bit better, or at least more comfortable.

Has anybody looked at Kotronias' coverage of 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 e6 3.g3? Is he good on that?

I'm thinking of returning to an 2...e6 Sicilian, but since I last played it seriously, 3.g3 has become very popular. Most people seem to go for various IQP positions against it with Black, which I'm not a big fan of.

I was wondering if I could offer a King's Indian Attack transposition by playing 3...Nc6, 4...Nf6 or 4...Nge7, and 5...d5, and recapture on d5 with the knight if White exchanges. At least the database doesn't reveal any immediate problems with that. 3...Nc6 4.Bg2 Nge7 5.0-0 Nd4!? is also an idea apparently.

P.S.: It crossed my mind that White could be very crafty and play 3.g3 Nc6 4.d4 or 4.Nc3 followed by d4, to aim for a g3 Taimanov while avoiding the Kan.

I'm a 2..e6 man myself, so I can't speak to the Rossolimo. I skipped those parts. But the 2.c3 recommendation seems OK, no? Kotronios goes into depth, no doubt, but think it's a main line that's been recommended by others.

He builds upon Aagaard's approach in Experts on the Anti-Sicilians, a very respectable way to play.

I'm a 2..e6 man myself, so I can't speak to the Rossolimo. I skipped those parts. But the 2.c3 recommendation seems OK, no? Kotronios goes into depth, no doubt, but think it's a main line that's been recommended by others.

In his choice of universal systems against the c3 Sicilian and Rossolimo, I think he increases the demands of the repertoire. There are no special move-order specific shortcuts to decrease the workload. Also he does not shy from complexity. In many respects, obtaining complex positions is his aim, so he will not always appeal to those who favor simplicity. I think his approach has its logic, since many players of these systems with the white pieces tend to avoid theory, but it takes serious preparation and this is exactly what I would expect from Kotronias.

Bump!Any further thoughts on this text?My opinion thus far is that K is very much concerned with theoretical viability, likely with a heavy duty PC, but less so with what I might term 'usability', which is quite important for those of us who are not softwares. A number of the lines seem quite unfriendly.

Well, it is, after all, a GM repertoire book, so would expect it to focus on main lines. But which lines do you find unfriendly?